In last week's "Corner," Wee Dan stepped up to the plate after Big Don broke his promise for January to give us more information about next week's "consecration" in the Swampland:
We had our first practice for Fr. Selway’s consecration last week. Fr. Cekada, reprising his role of twenty-five years ago, has been working very hard preparing the rubrics from our end. One of the fine seminarians will be serving as MC, and organizing the entire affair, a complicated and challenging ceremony to be sure, but truly one for the ages. Many of our faithful will be attending.There's more to "One Hand's" message than meets the eye. As we'll show, it's a last-ditch effort to appear relevant, to argue he has a purpose for existing and pocketing the laity's money once the Kid asserts his dominance from the top of the Tradistani pecking order.
After next Thursday's Bash in the Bog, all other "bishops" of the SW Ohio/B'ville cult — "One Hand," the Long-Island Jellyfish, the ailing Donster —will be utterly useless beyond their emptying chapels. "The Lowly Worm," the b.s. artist formerly known as Tradzilla, will have passed his sell-by date the moment the Kid wishes him (with fingers crossed behind his back?), "Ad multos annos!"* Big Don's being stoically closed-mouth about his approaching insignificance, but the Mitered Magpie of West Chester, true to his chattering nature, can't maintain a prudent silence. Pathetically, he's driven to put his thinly disguised anxieties right out on Front Street for TradWorld to ridicule.
In the futile struggle to keep the Gerties from writing him off, His Irrelevancy intimated he and Tony Baloney might have some material part to play on February 22, with Checkie busily "preparing the rubrics from our end." What a laugh! What "end"? The short end of the stick?
The Kid already has the ceremonial details from Big Don's "consecration" back in 2002. (They were probably based on copies of the Checkmeister's outline to begin with.) And why would the Cheeseball continue to prepare instructions so close to the date of the Big Show? All Dannie's doing here is trying (unsuccessfully) to make people believe he's somehow a major player in the sacrilegious pantomime destined to change the cult cabal forever.
From the vagueness of the "Corner's" first sentence, we infer that "One Hand" must not have been asked to be a co-consecrator. If he had been, we think he would've shot off his mouth about the supporting rôle in order to reassure the skeptical cultlings he still counts. Instead we get a murky reference to "our first practice."**
Who was practicing? Certainly Checkie wasn't practicing for MC, because Dannie tells us a so-called seminarian has been assigned the job of Master of Ceremonies. Furthermore, the "seminarian" is "organizing the entire affair," so it looks as though Bonehead Tone's been shut out completely. Maybe Lurch, one of Junior's fanboys, was tossed a "mercy" part to play in order to maintain his loyalty to the soon-to-be Numero Uno of Tradistan.
Amid all this angst and transparent face-saving, His Obsolescency couldn't help a little unintentional humor when he reported, "Many of our faithful will be attending [Joey's 'consecration']." That's a hoot! For the past year, the Wee One's been trying everything — including frivolous, illicit dispensations from the Friday abstinence — to herd balking Gerties into the pest-infested cult center for his sideshows. Yet for the Kid's extravaganza, the cult cattle are eager to hoof it about a thousand miles down to Florida to attend the Blast in the Morass.
Think of all that travel and lodging money Dispensin' Dan will never see in the collection basket, not to mention the cash tribute his dirty Gerties'll render to the newly crowned Grand High Panjandrum of Sedelandia. $GG's collection for February 4 was an anemic $3,764, the second collection totaled a miserly $530, and the week before netted a close-fisted $3,836. Have the skinflint cultlings been hoarding their dollars at Dannie's expense? His Indigency must have turned 50 shades of green with envy, but there's nothing he can do except put on a happy face and pretend he approves. After all, he can't afford to alienate the youthful and moneyed capo di tutti capi.
Faking benign approval won't help, either with the Boy "Bishop" or with the cultlings. No crumbs will come Dirtbag Dan's way when the Kid completely takes over pesthouse "ordinations." Likewise, we don't expect Wee Dan will be running My-Way Carlito's "priests'" retreats in the Evergreen State. Aware of "One Hand's" loss of relevancy, Gerties will look to Junior as the champion of their weird sectarian aspirations,*** leaving the Bantam "Bishop (?)," now reduced to a grinning id bereft of resources and voice, with nothing to do other than once a year "consecrating" doubtful oils that no one but his own dubious "clergy" need or will use.
* That is, IF the over-the-top Display near the Bay takes place.
** But the jury's still out on that question. As we've written, whether or not "One-Hand Dan" co-consecrates will depend upon how eager the élite are to protect the integrity of the Clone's "episcopate." True, Dannie could co-consecrate along with the Jellyfish, who would offset the stain of dubiety, but do the real chiefs of B'ville want to associate the Kid with the embattled troublemaker who exposed them to so much grief as a result of the catastrophic 2009 $GG $CHOOL $CANDAL?
*** They'll be disappointed, for we predict the Florida cult will soon retreat into itself. The Boy "Bishop" prudently won't write a thing. The only "missions" he'll undertake are those that generate surplus cash for the boggy cult HQ. From now on, a low profile is necessary to divert Trad Nation's alarmed interest in all that's been going on in the fetid swamp.
Not surprising you once again cite an anti-Catholic freethinker as the entrance to your screed.
ReplyDeleteWe've explained the rationale behind our selection of epigraphs too many times to repeat it here.
DeleteI think the comment by Anon (besides simply factual) was fitting since you mostly choose anti-Catholic sources for your lead-ins.
ReplyDeleteThe epigraphs are chosen for their content, not their author. Just because St. Thomas Aquinas cites Aristotle or Avicenna or Avicebron, that doesn't mean he endorses paganism, Islam, or Judaism.
DeleteStatistics mean something, and somehow you always know these obscure quotes by anti-Catholics and would rather quote them than something from the abundant Saints' writings. But....it fits what your blogs are about, so keep doing as you do.
ReplyDeleteAnons - why are you here if you don't like it? Go somewhere else to your liking & stop whining like a child.
ReplyDeleteANON 17 Feb. 8:28 PM
DeleteFor one thing, we blog almost exclusively about malformed, scumbag religious entrepreneurs who aren't Catholic. We doubt many saints wrote on that topic.
You got that right! They surely existed throughout history and the Saints didn't do what you are doing. Get the message??
DeleteAnon-8:29pm, it amazes me how utterly deficient the thought patterns are for the cronies of this blog. Do you know the difference between a complaint and whine? No, you don't. Perhaps you are for censoring any negative replies here? But, if the blog invites both positive and negative responses, to choose negative is welcome here. Why would one want to give a negative response here? Because it's Catholic to do so when it exposes error and helps other toward truth. That process is demanded of Catholic as being a "good work".
DeleteJust for you, Anon 10:15AM, I looked up 'whine' in my handy dandy Vest Pocket Ed. of Webster's Dictionary & there in black & white was the definition of whine - A PETTY complaint. (emphasis mine) Exactly what I wanted to convey.
DeleteSo once again, it is you, Anon 10:15AM, who is utterly deficient in thought patterns. Plus, if you are reading & posting here, then you too are a 'crony of this blog'!! The irony of it all!
DeleteSounds to me like you are going to some mod, urban adolescent dictionary as well as dishonestly saying it give "the" definition. A college dictionary says no such thing - you know, the one's intellectual people use. A complaint, however small, is not necessarily a whine, but it must include the nature of emotional high-piched whaling, at least figuratively. As a matter of fact PL has stated that it covering petty faults was necessary in their own work. As well, a crony is an accomplice, not a person who makes objections. So much for right thinking.
DeleteThe Reader February 17, 2018 at 8:38 PM
ReplyDeleteBut the people who you quote were not writing about malformed, scumbag religious entrepreneurs who aren't Catholic.
Saints wrote many things from a Catholic perspective about immorality, sinfulness, fallen human nature, inclinations, human behavior, weaknesses proclivities etc.
Innumerable quotes that could be considered most apropos can be found.
But their words are most appropriate to the scumbaggery themes of our posts, and so we choose them. That's our standard. You don't like it. O.K. Don't like it. Just know your inferences about our choices are wrong-headed, narrow minded, and anti-intellectual. All thought is our oyster as long as it's apropos to our topic in some way that we determine. There's no more to be said.
DeleteReader, why are you wasting your time responding to an obvious malcontent seeking attention?
ReplyDeleteLet’s stick to the themes of this week’s message. So, this is the big week when Selway is made a bishop. Will Sinburn continue on as the boss of the Brooksville compound, move to France, or what? Does Brooksville need 2 bishops? And then, is there even a hint one-hand will even be at the ceremony, perhaps as a decoration in the sanctuary? Will be interesting to see who has the biggest miter and ring.
Anon 18 Feb. 10:36
DeleteYou're absolutely right, which is why we closed that thread at 10:24 PM last night. (We indulged them because their remarks exposed the writers for the lowbrows they and the "clergy" they support are.)
Your questions go to the heart of the matter and deserve a full hearing as a new thread on this week's comments. We'll help get the conversation back on track.
In today's "Corner," Dannie says Joey will "serve as Bishop Sanborn’s assistant in his heavy apostolate at the seminary and abroad," but it seems to us that the Boy "Bishop" will be Big Don's replacement, not his sidekick. There's not that much work to be done. And even if they keep up the fiction, the B'ville cultlings will gravitate to the Kid, for he's their future. Don's going to fade away soon.
We now don't think he'll be heading off to France to found a "seminary." According to Dannie, the Gallic Melancholic "will be ordained this Spring in Italy," by Stuyver, we suspect, at Verrua. To us, that's a clear signal the Donster's been told to stay on his side of the fence. Perhaps the "Lowly Worm" will just retire to Vero Beach, FL.
As of this comment post, we think "One-Hand Dan" will indeed attend the ceremony, even if he's not a co-consecrator. When you think about it, he has no other choice, if he wants to save face. By his attendance, he can give the impression that it was done with his authorization. Were he to be a "no-show," as he was at Big Don's 2002 shindig, he'd be on everyone's naughty list. For this very reason, we think, he's been hyping the Blast in the Morass for the last several weeks.
Substantiating our guess is Dannie's remark, "you will note a lighter Lenten schedule this week, due to the episcopal consecration of Fr. Selway at Most Holy Trinity Seminary." It looks, then, as if most of the $GG "clergy" will be down in the Swamp. Who will be left alone to man the decaying fort while most of the clown crew is in the quagmire isn't yet known. We are almost certain the odd-man-out won't be Wee Dan. Perhaps Uneven Steven: he never belonged to MHT, seeing that his "formation" (LOL) was a kind of independent study with Vaillancourt. He just wouldn't fit in, figuratively and literally. But if Dan's grooming him as his successor, then maybe he'll tag along to see how it's done, and the Forlorn Finn may have to stay behind.
The miter and ring sizes would be interesting, but we'd like to be present to see who's strutting the finest tailored choir kit on the "clerical catwalk." That's where you see who has $$$ and who doesn't. The Kid's gonna put them all to shame, especially shabby Wee Dan.
Why do you call Father McKenna "Uneven-Steven McFaker"?
DeleteOwing to his "formation." (LOL!)
DeleteFr.Vili should be Bp.Dolan's replacement.
DeleteHe has education and his sermons are usually edifying.
We'll go out on a limb and predict that Uneven Steven will be "One-Hand's" successor and the next "bishop" of $GG. When that will happen, we aren't sure.
DeleteA Bishop with $$$ ALWAYS carries a pricey stylish looking crozier,alà
DeleteBishop Clarence Kelly.
We're hoping for some pix of Joey's. We'll bet it's a humdinger!
DeleteAll your talk makes me long for a Fellini spectacle. It’s been a long, boring winter. Quid dicam?
ReplyDeleteWell, then, we'd say that the February 22 "Display near the Bay" should prove to be more spectacular than the 1969 "Fellini Satyricon."
DeleteIn re: the Reader's speculations above at Feb. 18, 11:49 AM:
ReplyDeleteLi'l Daniel may not have to leave any of his "clergy" home alone with the freezing Gerties while he and the others attend the sunny February 22 Bash in the Bog.
In the Candlemas $GG newsletter, Dannie provided a list of cult satellites run by $GG "clergy." For # 10, he noted the cult was "Assisting at St. Anthony of Padua Chapel." Although he oddly did not provide the city and state for that location as he did for the other nine, it is not unreasonable to assume he is referring to the chapel in Columbus, Ohio, founded by former members of St. Clare's after they angrily left Dannie in the wake of the dreadful 2009 $GG $chool $candal.
The "priest" there whom he claims to be "assisting" could easily go to West Chester to sub for these "clerical" bums for a couple days while they're living it up in Florida. Since the "priest" was relieved of one of the Mass centers at which he was employed and now only works for the Columbus board of trustees, he's got loads of time. He'd would probably welcome the extra cash.
The down side in all this for Dannie is the guy only says the Pius XII liturgy. But maybe the Wee One could leave his principles in West Chester for a few days in order to avoid hard feelings among his clown crew.
Who is the priest you refer to that only offers the "Pius XII liturgy"?
DeleteAnd where was he trained? Who ordained him?
Pistrina Liturgica February 18, 2018 at 4:02 PM
DeleteWho is the priest you refer to that only offers the "Pius XII liturgy"?
And where was he trained? Who ordained him?
That's Heebie-Jeebie Jimbo, aka "Fr. Angelo" in some quarters, elsewhere Squealin' Thielen. From what we know, he was a CMRI "brother" way back in the old days, whom Carmona later "ordained" in Hermosillo, Mexico. He once told a colleague he had permission from a "bishop" to read the breviary in English. We were informed by someone from the Columbus chapel that he insisted on saying the Pius XII liturgy as his condition for accepting employment from the strong lay board. There are quite a few stories about his so called mastery of that form of the Roman rite. Sometimes, in lieu of a "sermon," he used to play recordings of Big Don's harangues. (The board may have put an end to that practice.)
DeleteWhy is he called Heebie-Jeebie Jimbo and Fr. Angelo?
DeleteWe think Angelo was his "name in religion." To understand the former, you gotta have first-hand experience.
DeleteThe Reader February 20, 2018 at 8:41 PM
DeleteSo you have first-hand experience but do not have the capability to explain yourself?
Not all the Readers have had direct experience with Heebie Jeebie Jimbo.
DeleteOne Of The Readers February 21, 2018 at 9:18 AM
DeleteCan the Reader who called him Heebie-Jeebie Jimbo,explain why he called him that?
The effect of his demeanor.
DeletePL: And maybe you should imagine yourself before Our Lord at your particular judgment explaining why you were so disrespectful of His ministers, calling them "guy" and all sorts of unflattering names. It's going to be a difficult time for you...
ReplyDeleteWe're not worried. These men are not His ministers, as we've abundantly and conclusively demonstrated in the past.
DeleteWow, some people are too sure of themselves.
DeleteOr are they full of themselves?
Bishop Sanborn didn't 'break his promise', because he didn't make a promise. Come on, consult a moral theology book before making a rash statement that publicly accuses a priest of sin. Anyone who expresses his plan to do something, doesn't promise anything, and he has the right to change his mind.
ReplyDeleteHere are Big Don's own words in his December newsletter, emphasis ours:
Delete"The date of the episcopal consecration is set for Thursday, February 22nd, at
10:00 A.M. It was necessary to determine that Father Selway would be able to obtain all of
the items required for his consecration by this date. We have now determined that this
is possible. I will give further information about it in the January newsletter."
Once again, he didn't "promise" to give information, and he changed his mind. This has always been commonly accepted, unless the context entails inconvenience, like when a suitor says he will marry a woman, or a person says he will give another $2000 dollars on a particular date. The tentative nature of the episcopal consecration was always understood by all readers.
DeleteHe made a specific, unqualified act of the will. It was made without consideration. It concerned a gratuitous and useful thing, accepted by those to whom it was promised. There was a time limit. It was not useless to the promisees. His promise bound at least sub levi.
DeleteIt is YOU who need to read moral theology books.
Perhaps you didn't read about the "tentative nature"? Go read the spirit of the moral theology principle and you will see that not every expressed determination of will is a promise. It is not, not by a long shot!
DeleteWe know his remark in the newsletter didn't fulfill the conditions of a promise under moral theology.
DeleteWe did not have anything I remember about the Sermon on the Mount growing up in the Episcopal Church. Anything familiar about it isn't likely because I heard it emphasized in church. So last night when rereading parts of the True Consecration to Mary readings - have not yet taken the Consecration - provided by Fr. Libietis in the five week preparation I saw I could benefit rereading what I took for granted first time around - meaning, every night I will reread it when I am doing my reading. Several extensive quotes from St. Matthew.
ReplyDeleteI remembered this particular blog post and thought of it when I reached the advice about not saying 'thou fool' to anyone lest problems ensue until some kind of balance is achieved. I can only think that the Readers on an interior level have made peace with the 'thou fool' aspect long before now and certainly before each and every public post.
It is going to be difficult watching what goes on with the 'true restoration' that seems sure. I don't think this group is going to fade into the sunset due to too many people who just want what they are 'used to' who seem simply to lack the ability to dig very deeply because of distraction and other problems.
The best work I see on this site has to do with several areas one of which is particularly maddening, changing the liturgy.
That leaves aside the entire problem with jurisdiction except that no one may change the liturgy.
Several times I see "the Kid" mentioned. If I'm not mistaken, you are referring to Fr. Selway? He's not a kid. He's not even an adolescent, nor young adult! President T. Roosevelt and Pres. Kennedy were as old as he coming into office and no one took them as being even adolescents! So,what's the deal with that? Your flat statement of "kid" seems to be a judgment that Fr. Selway was consciously planned to be a bishop for like 26 years? You have not the slightest evidence for that when he was a child. That is plainly dishonest.
ReplyDeleteYes, we do. But we we speaking in terms of maturation.
DeleteAnon 7:46 PM
DeleteReader is saying that Fr Selway is (even at age 40) still rather boyish!
If I recall correctly, Fr Selway has been referred to as "The Kid" on this blog for more than a year already.
What 'makes me mad' is that you just can't keep making bishops willy-nilly just because it fosters your empire. I 'just can't keep' from seeing that these bishops are being consecrated without any authorization or jurisdiction, period.
ReplyDeleteFr. Cekada is usually the one whose articles on epikeia are cited by places like dailycatholic which stands on the premise that the Brooksville-West Chester group and offshoots are genuine.
Since his uses of epikeia are wrong and useful in the service of his 'cause' -_- it is crystal why the term 'pest house' is accurate and very apt to describe Brooksville!
I understood that before now, but more recently more vividly since getting into what is offered at jmjsite regarding jurisdiction. That site focuses on poisonous bishop mushrooms. That's my term for them.
How awful to say! Poison. But... without any jurisdiction and coming from the behest of no higher authority this is the creation of empires. Even without the Readers to help, it seems obvious.
+ Is this what God wants, in view of the fact that He set up the Church with a far stricter hierarchy and checks and balances... rather like life in the real world for example. It is Human to remake the system; that isn't allowed in real life. Only criminals try to get around this and eventually they are caught. We've seen that recently in education and in the police department - high level reckonings after years of painstaking investigation.
Well, in the midest of a thunderstorm and rain, I couldn't concentrate on praying the Seven Dolours and so came back on line to say why so I could return and concentrate.
FYI Bp. Sanborn's birthday is tomorrow, 19 February.
Michael Cain of Daily Catholic once believed in Medjugorje & now he's into the 'swamp'. Looks like a case of going from the frying pan into the fire!
DeleteA pleasant posting announcing the impending consecration may be found on Traditio.
ReplyDeleteAnon.'s Feb. 18, 5:37 PM and 7:46 PM, are you two the same person? You ought to be, because you both lack the basics of common sense. For people with any sense, referring to Joey as “the Kid” has nothing to do with age per se, but – as the Reader noted – maturity; and for you, Anon. 7:46 PM, to nitpick on this point shows your level of maturity. And as for Anon. 5:37 PM, your nitpicking about the word “promise” shows not only a lack of maturity, but ignorance as well. When someone clearly states (in writing, no less) that he will provide information, and then doesn’t, that clearly constitutes what most people would call "breaking a promise". And the fact that you chose to focus on such an irrelevant “tangent point” as this also shows your ill will (and your predetermined intention to find fault where none exists. For the both of you, if you want to argue, argue about something that is relevant to the discussion -- not some meaningless side issues.
ReplyDeleteDo you know where the Calderas de Pedro Botero are located?
ReplyDeleteBe careful, lest you end up there…
Yes, we do. They're located near Tampa, FL, and Cincinnati, OH.
DeleteNo, they are not located there. You are wrong.
DeleteNo, we are not.
DeleteThe calderas are definitely situated where the sede cults have their HQ's. They're veritable portals of hell. If you ever pass by, the smoke of Satan is impossible to miss. If your nose is stopped up in the SW Ohio region so you can't detect the sulphuric fumes, you can definitely tell by the infestation of vermin, a definite calling card of Ol' Scratch.
“Touch ye not my anointed: and do no evil to my prophets.”
Delete(Psalm 104, 15)
“Judge not, that you may not be judged.”
(St. Matthew 7, 1)
“I will take away the false prophets, and the unclean spirit out of the earth.” (Zach. 13:2)
Delete“For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:13)
“And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Apoc. 20:10)
Of course you slide on by the "judge not" part.
Delete"Do you not judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves." (1 Cor. 5: 12-13)
DeleteAny news on the Big Event?
ReplyDeleteThey were going to livestream it on YouTube, but the channel was closed down yesterday when we checked in preparation for viewing and analysis today. They must've gotten scared about too many experienced eyes viewing the Bash in the Bog. We don't blame them. Better to play it safe.
ReplyDeleteWe did see from Scut's tweet that the co-consecrators at yesterday's practice were "One-Hand" Dan (!!) and the Belgian Geert Stuyver. We don't know yet if the Jellyfish was in attendance or if he bailed out completely. Rumor has it the Highlanders haven't been too happy.
Earlier we had said that we thought the élite bosses of B'ville would have had the sense to keep Dannie away from the altar. We were mistaken. Maybe they reasoned that the participation of Stuyver, whose priestly and episcopal "orders" come from "Bishop" McKenna, was sufficient to guarantee validity, thereby negating Deficit Dan's appearance and any possibility that the Liénart line through the archbishop may be invalid.
We hope to get more reports in the week to come.
Pistrina LiturgicaFebruary 22, 2018 at 5:21 PM
DeleteWhat is the youtube channel that you refer to? Is it tied in with heiner?
No. It belonged to a relative of the Beanpole. Click HERE./
DeleteThe Reader/PL
ReplyDeleteJust found your excellent website.In your view would you also say Pivarunas is a scum bucket.From hearsay he also lives the high life.
Pivarunas and the CMRI say in the back of the Reign of Mary magazine that the 1917 Code of Canon Law is their guide.How untrue.The complete seminary formation is seven years while Pivarunas is ordaining men as Subdeacons after two years with no prior training.The list could go on.
Look forward to your comments.Pax
For us, CMRI is far worse than the SW Ohio/Brooksville cult, if you can imagine that. We're aware of sect's deficiencies in formation, and we can't understand how anyone would fall for its P.R. All these offenses to true religion should be run out of town.
DeleteAnon 6:17PM, you might be interested in reading a book of a little over 200 pages written by an ex-CMRI nun, Sherri Schettler, "Spiritual Blackmail: My Journey Through A Catholic Cult".
DeleteThe Circus rehearses
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FrDesposito/status/966491461855399936
Program from the big day
Deletehttps://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/religion/Consecration%20of%20Bishop%20Selway.pdf
Reader,
ReplyDeleteDid your informant attend the concentration?
Do you believe Fr. Selway is now a valid bishop?
Owing to the participation of co-consecrator Geert Stuyver, whose uncanonical priestly and episcopal orders were conferred by "Bp." Robert McKenna, we do believe that the illicit orders the Kid received yesterday are valid, until the day a competent author proves beyond a reasonable doubt —or the restored Church declares — that the Thục line is invalid. We do not believe Junior is a Roman Catholic bishop.
DeleteWhat you need is a one on one discussion to disabuse you of so many errors you have on this blog. I mean a real public discussion without a moderator. I challenge you, and I know the place. But you won't take it, because you are not secure in your beliefs. You just repeatedly, day after day, month after month, year after year commit horrible sins against faith and charity. You don't seem to be aware of even what the Saints said about rumours and contumely. You really have no grasp on what epikeia or supplied jurisdiction is. Your cult-like insistence that priests must remember EVERYTHING they learned in the seminary. I can see you now berating St. John Vianney. I can see you now suggesting that if seminarians don't get 100% on every test, then they don't have a vocation! It's really sickening to watch your antics, and to think there are actually a group of people following you in all this.
DeleteHere here. Take a look at this:
Deletehttp://thetradforum.com/index.php?topic=301.msg4263#msg4263
Anon 23 Feb. 6:18
DeleteYou are wrong about everything.
We would venture to say that our grasp of epieikeia is far greater than yours. You see, we own and have studied Riley's 1948 dissertation and hence are very informed of the deep complexities attendant to the concept's correct application. We possess and have carefully read the Greek text of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics along with the best commentaries, medieval and modern. We've also examined in detail the De Legibus of Suárez. Our knowledge of supplied jurisdiction is similarly superior, since we can read the Latin authors who discuss it in detail.
As for contumely and detraction, we've answered that canard by citing Merkelbach on several occasions (see HERE).
Finally, the ecclesiastical adventurers whom we expose are not members of the Roman Catholic Church: they are not Roman Catholic bishops, priests, or seminarians. They have no clerical rights. They have no authority or jurisdiction. They have no right to wear clerical vesture. They are merely laymen, some of whom possess valid orders.
But our blog is not a forum to debate with the uninformed on issues that aren't germane to its purpose. This blog is dedicated to exposing Tradistan for the gross pantomime of religion that it is. We'll continue to moderate with that end in view and use our free time to promote our message.
I know your blog isn't...that's why I challenged you to a discussion elsewhere. Did you see that? You won't take the challenge be you really are not certain of yourself.
DeleteIf you assume, for the sake of argument, that the hierarchy in union with Bergoglio has defected en masse from the Catholic religion, what should the "Tradistan" clergy do to be considered true Catholic clergy according to your standards? Reconcile with Bergoglio and join the Peter Fraternity?
DeleteBut we are certain of ourselves — very certain. And we have the resources to back up what we affirm. We simply have other things to do rather than waste time with you. Apart from this blog, we all have rich lives to lead, and it would be a shame to miss out on so much arguing with the untutored. BTW, this response closes this thread.
DeleteAnon 23 Feb. 8:03
DeleteThey can never be true Roman Catholic clergy, unless at the Restoration the true Church invites them to join the ranks of real clergy.
However, that's highly unlikely. We believe virtually all would be told to rejoin as laymen. A few, perhaps, might be sent to a real seminary for training and conditional ordination. Moreover, even if the current "hierarchy" defected tomorrow, it would steer clear of the Tradistanis. They're not fit.
The few valid Tradistani clergy should merely offer the sacraments when the laity demand them. They should not call themselves "Father" or "Bishop"; they should not give sermons or homilies. Outside the administration of the sacraments, they should wear lay clothing. They should have regular jobs. Above all, they should pray for the Restoration and the humility to endure the Church's surely harsh sentence if it arrives in their lifetime.
Let me rephrase 8:03's question. If you had a son with a priestly vocation, where would you tell him to go, in our present circumstances, to study and get ordained to be, according to your criteria, a true Catholic priest?
DeleteAnon Feb 22, at 11:40 PM
DeleteShould that be consecration?
Not concentration.
23 Feb. 8:41 PM
DeleteWe messaged your question to the entire editorial team. All members but one affirmed they would do everything in their power to dissuade the young man from such a calamitous misadventure, given today's circumstances. The lone hold out, who attends an SSPX chapel, without hesitation replied, "Écône!"
How many people are on the editorial team?
DeleteThe number varies week by week, depending on the post. This week it numbered 10 since we had expected to be able to watch the livestream of the Blast in the Morass on Thursday and prepare a play-by-play critique in time for a Saturday A.M. posting. But as you know, the cult masters shut down the channel.
DeleteThanks for taking that poll and responding to my question. So, if your son were a principled sedevacantist (meaning Écône is not an option for him), is he just supposed to hope a restoration happens all by itself before the few sede clergy you might find acceptable die out? It doesn't seem right to me to take that approach, unless your endgame is to rid the world of sede clergy altogether. I can understand why a Lefebvrist heretic would want that, but not a true Catholic.
Delete24 Feb. 4:24 AM
DeleteWe shared your follow-up query with our sedes at this morning's editorial conference. Before we give their reply, note the following:
1. They do not believe SVism is dogma. For them, it is a probable opinion of poorly trained men who are not Catholic theologians, so they would abandon their position if a more probable opinion were to materialize. (The one who holds to the materialiter thesis believes des Lauriers was a true Catholic theologian and thus would only put aside her position if the alternative were proposed by someone with like credentials.)
2. They are all professionals who have post-graduate degrees and were successful in their professions. Consequently, they wanted their offspring to enjoy a similar or better education and life prospects.
With that in mind, their response is that they would still endeavor with all their might to discourage a son from becoming a sede "priest."
1st, because the formation in these unaccredited trade-school "seminaries" is so dreadful. (They're older people who value higher education and can remember real seminaries.)
2nd, because the Tradistani "seminarians," "priests," and "bishops" with whom their son would have to associate are so grossly undereducated and not the kind of people they would want in their son's company, being, as the younger "clergy" are, products of home schooling and chapel "schools." As professionals they understand the importance of having socially and educationally superior classmates to help in a young person's formation.
3rd, because of the problem of validity of Tradistani orders. There's still too much uncertainty, and the other shoe could drop any day.
4th, because they know that Tradistani "clergy" are not true Roman Catholic priests or bishops.
Inasmuch as the N.O., the FSSP, and the SSPX are not alternatives for them, their preference is for so-called simplex "priests" to offer the sacraments without pretending they are authentic Catholic clergy.
They are resigned to the fact that they will never encounter among the Tradistanis the well-trained, decent, and well-adjusted clergy they knew in their youth, and they wouldn't want a son to be numbered among the lowlife impostors of Tradistan. Parents want the best for their children, and the life of a money-mad, mortal-sin-inventing Tradistani "cleric" is a shameful one.
If their son truly thought he had a vocation to acquire holy orders, they would tell him to first enter a professional field of study, get an advanced degree, and land a good job. If, after many years and much success, he determined he still had that vocation, he could become a simplex and offer the sacraments on a part-time basis.
BTW, our SSPXer says "back atch-ya" with the heresy charge.
Thank you again for the very thoughtful reply--it does give me some real insight into your perspective. Not too concerned about your lone SSPXer's opinion, given he either professes unity with a heretical pope or believes genuine unity with a true pope does not matter.
DeleteThe invitation nearly as indecipherable as the coat of arms can be viewed at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sodalitium.biz/un-vescovo-cattolico/
"Brooksvillense in Florida?"
As we proved many years ago on our page Pistrina bids the rector to school... (click HERE), "Brooksvillense" is both ungrammatical and impossible as the locative.
DeleteThese guys will never learn. They will persist in all error, theological and grammatical.
Question: The Swampland adherents claim Pius XII was the last legitimate Roman Pontiff. Pius XII changed Canon Law so that an illicit consecration of a bishop incurred ispo facto excommunication. So do these people believe they have excommunicated themselves or do they a magic sieve with which to sift papal law?
ReplyDeleteI saw that you mentioned the theologian Merkelbach here and gave a link, but when I go there there is only a reference to the title, and I find it only exists in Latin! Can you provide us the English?
ReplyDelete§§429 & 430 are relative long, with extensive portions in small type. In addition, to understand §429, you need §428. The whole totals over 3.25 Latin pp. (the English would be longer) — far too lengthy for the comments page.
DeletePerhaps the first lines of §§429 & 430 will help you understand M's point:
429. Thesis II. For a proportionately grave reason, it is lawful to make known the hidden defects of others.— The reason is that it is lawful, under proper conditions, to assert the cause of an evil effect.
430. To make known a public or notorious offense to others who are generally and per se ignorant of it is not against justice, because the right to reputation has been lost, although it may be possible to be against charity.
A vile-mouthed anonymous commenter criticized our attribution of a "chattering nature" to the "Mitered Magpie of West Chester." While we cannot post his exceedingly vulgar message, we can prove the error of his critique by first quoting from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, under the article magpie:
ReplyDelete"2. transf. An idle or impertinent chatterer."
Next we offer the 1906 edition of the Glossary of Words, Phrases, Names and Allusions in the Works of English Authors, Particularly of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries of Robert Nares, which has this to say:
"MAGOT-PIE. The bird now called, by abbreviation, a mag-pie Most probably from the French, magot, a monkey, because the bird chatters and plays droll tricks like a monkey."
Finally we introduce the authority of the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology by Onions that, while advancing a different etymology, says the magpie "is noted for its noisy chatter..."
We could go on an on, such as this note from Chambers:
"The nickname Mag was long used in various proverbial phrases referring to idle chattering, such as the Middle Englsih magge tales tall tales, nonsense, trifles (before 1410). —adj. having characteristics attributed to the magpie, such as chattering...1808, from the noun."
However, that should be enough to silence as well as to educate the ignoramus.
Ironic you should say "ignoramus" when what you did was defend the nature of a magpie when the Anon you were responding to wasn't objecting to the characterization of a bird but of a particular human! Don't tell me Anon said magpies don't chatter and you spend time on that?
DeleteIndeed he did, and in our charity we set him straight.
DeleteG'day mate!!! I'm an Aussie living in New Guinea! Strike me pink, cobber! What in blue blazes are you talking about? Magpies don't chatter! I need to beg me Maggie to sing for me! She's a ripper beauty mate with a lovely singing voice, though! just a bit shy. Not chatty at all I'm afraid, me old digger.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/-XilaFMUwng
English word history says otherwise, we're afraid.
DeleteHi The Reader
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that Bishop Dolan would be flattered that you compared him to one of the most intelligent animals
on the planet. It's hardly an insult comparing somebody to a Magpie.
"The Eurasian magpie is one of the most intelligent birds, and it is believed to be one of the most intelligent of all non-human animals. The expansion of its nidopallium is approximately the same in its relative size as the brain of chimpanzees, orangutans and humans."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_magpie
Except we were comparing the bird brain to the literary/proverbial significance of the magpie, not to the findings of comparative biology. The literary/proverbial is always pejorative.
DeleteAnon@ 5:14 pm
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't surprise me. I can tell you that there's a competition going on to see who can get the Reader to react the most times.
And when the comment fits our purposes, we're sure to reply.
DeleteI hold the sedevacantist opinion and do NOT consider the
ReplyDeleteSSPX-Resistance heretics.
Not all traditional Catholics hold grudges and yearn to shout
"Heretic" @any non-sedevacantist.
Our Sede priest & bishop offer Holy Mass for a true Pope and hierarchy every week.
The CMRI,while possessing valid orders,are the one group I avoid like the plague.
The entire "Pius XII Holy Week and Missal" are wrong.
Pius XII was the one who changed Apostolic traditions wholesale from 1951-1958 and commissioned the
"Liturgical change committee" in 1948.
Bp.Pivarunas needs a valid traditional cleric to teach him properly.
Congratulations to Bishop Selway.
May God bless and guide his Soul.
P.S. I pray for the SSPV and hold no grudge against them either.
In fact I have attended Holy Mass at one of their mission chapels 5 or 6 times.(couldn't go to confession or Holy Communion but they accepted my tithe. ;-)
Well, if the Boy "Bishop" succeeds in running out the Lowly Worm and takes his cult to ground, we'll congratulate him, too. Traditional Catholics will be able to breathe easier.
DeleteActually, you can go to confession at sspv, but not communion. ; )
DeleteIf you hold the "sedevacantist opinion", as you say, then you are an opinionist, not a sedevacantist. Wouldn't be severing myself from the putative pope and hierarchy if I thought their illegitimacy were only a matter of my personal opinion. Just speaking as a Catholic though.
DeleteThe Reader February 25, 2018 at 7:20 AM
DeleteYou know that no matter he what he does you will still criticize him as long as he does not do everything your way.
We do have a pope. It is PL. A collective pope.
Nope, we're not a pope. Just a Watchbird watching out for you and other Catholics exposed to fake "clergy."
Delete@2:02pm
DeleteI can't bind your conscience nor am I the Pope.
The SSPV mission don't allow confession for Thuc line laymen.
This is their policy and it doesn't offend me though they should be consistent & reject my tithe.
Again, I think you are mistaken. From what I can recall, they announce that all are welcome to attend, but please speak to them before going to communion. All are also welcome to go to confession.
DeleteAbout rejecting the tithe, should they come down from the pulpit and say we aren't taking tithe from this person? The collection basket is passed around in every church that I have been, so it doesn't even make sense what you are saying about how they should reject your tithe.
They announce at the sermon Thuc line parishioners can't receive holy Communion or confession.(at least to the one I attended)
DeleteThey should announce since you're not a solid Catholic with good judgement (according to Fr Jenkins & Bp.Kelly)
we can't nor will not accept your tithe as we will look extremely hypocritical.
Confucius said that if you want revenge then dig two graves
ReplyDeleteHere's what I have to say about the Brooksville group and associates,"
ReplyDeleteIt were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones. "
Anon @ 2:20 am said: 'The entire "Pius XII Holy Week and Missal" are wrong.
ReplyDeletePius XII was the one who changed Apostolic traditions wholesale from 1951-1958 and commissioned the
"Liturgical change committee" in 1948.'
Pope Pius XII is an indisputably valid pontiff. Meaning: rational sedeplenists and sedevacantists alike acknowledge him as such.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong or evil with the Pius XII Holy Week changes. This is acknowledged by all traditional clergy, sede and sedeplene alike. The changes were correctly promulgated, and Bp. Sanborn has acknowledged this. They (certain sede clergy) have other reasons for rejecting the changes (I'm positive you're familiar with those reasons).
But it's an inescapable FACT that a valid pontiff can't give stones to the faithful, nor can he give bread which subsequently turn to stones, which in effect is what the non-Pope Pius XII clergy claim. I could say a whole lot more but I think the inferences are quite clear.
Pius XII was the first modernist Novus Ordo "Pope" and his record from 51-58 prove this inescapable fact.
DeleteI will no longer contribute to this unnecessary discussion.
God bless.